B E A M - C O L U M N M O M E N T CONNECTIONS

FOR C O M P O S I T E F R A M E S : P A R T 1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 10/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

By Tauqlr M. Sheikh,1 Gregory G. Deierlein,2 Joseph A. Yura,3

and James O. Jirsa,4 Members, ASCE

ABSTRACT: Increasingly, engineers are designing composite and mixed building

systems of structural steel and reinforced concrete to produce more efficient struc-
tures than realized using either material alone. Recent literature has pointed out a
need for greater understanding of the interaction of structural steel and reinforced
concrete in such systems. In this paper, the behavior of composite beam-column
connections is examined through results of an experimental research program where
15 two-thirds scale joint specimens were tested under monotonic and cyclic load-
ing. Such connections are typically employed in composite framed structures con-
sisting of steel beams and reinforced concrete or composite columns. Significant
strength increases were achieved using straightforward details to enhance concrete
participation in the joint region. Details considered include the following attach-
ments to the steel beam: vertical stiffener plates, steel columns, welded shear studs,
and Dywidag reinforcing bars. The results and discussion presented in this paper
provide background for a companion paper that includes a design model for cal-
culating the joint strength.

INTRODUCTION

In the last few decades, mixed steel-concrete structural systems have gained
in popularity for the construction of buildings. However, until recently such
systems employed only simple shear connections between structural steel and
reinforced concrete elements. Thus, there was minimum interaction between
the two materials. More recently, mixed structural systems have taken a new
direction. In composite framed structures, unprecedented interaction between
structural steel and reinforced concrete is being utilized in beam-column mo-
ment connections, thereby achieving greater economy in the overall struc-
ture.
The term "composite frame" is used in this paper for a moment-resisting
frame with steel beams and reinforced concrete columns, in which the com-
posite beam-column connection is an integral part. To date, composite frames
have been employed as the lateral force system for buildings in the 40-70-
story range, with conventional slab/deck/steel-beam floor framing. Typi-
cally, such structures are built by first erecting a frame of light steel erection
columns and deep spandrel beams. The steel columns are later encased by
reinforced concrete columns. In most cases, the steel erection advances roughly
ten stories ahead of the concrete column, thus providing for an efficient
vertical spread of the construction activity (see Fig. 1).
Composite framed structures are more cost-effective in tall buildings where
'Assoc, CBM Consulting Engrs., Inc., Houston, TX 77027.
2
Asst. Prof, of Civ. Engrg., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 14853.
3
Prof. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX 78712.
4
Prof. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX.
Note. Discussion open until April 1, 1990. Separate discussions should be sub-
mitted for the individual papers in this symposium. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on Au-
gust 8, 1988. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 115,
No. 11, November, 1989. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/89/0011-2858/$!.00 + $.15
per page. Paper No. 24086.

2858

J. Struct. Eng., 1989, 115(11): 2858-2876

 guy derrick
Lfiiffil MiYly
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 10/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

11-12 setting steel

f-^ _^_t metal deck 9-10 welding steel,

setting deck
t—\ Tr-\ T/™\ studs
n Tr~\ T/~\ 7-8 placing studs
WF column &WWF
I r-\ TV-v Tr^TI finished slab
/ - \ T./-V TJFi I
5-6 pouring floors

3-4 tying column

cage
1-2 setting forms &
<~* T>-v T / - \ I pouring columns

composite column

FIG. 1. Composite Frame Construction Sequence (Griffis 1986)

columns represent a larger portion of the structural cost. One study reports
that under axial loads, reinforced concrete columns are roughly 8-11 times
more cost-effective than structural steel columns in terms of the strength and
stiffness provided (Griffis 1986). Further, superior damping properties of
concrete over steel improve the dynamic response of tall buildings. On the
other hand, concrete is at a disadvantage when it comes to beams and floor
framing because of higher labor cost for formwork and shoring and slower
speed of construction. By using concrete only in the column elements, com-
posite frames use each material, structural steel and concrete, to its best
advantage.
The need for study of the interaction between structural steel and rein-
forced concrete in composite and mixed structures has been cited (Griffis
1986; Iyengar 1985; Lu and Kato 1985; Moore and Gosain 1985). Current
design practice for composite beam-column connections requires judgment
by the designer, using existing knowledge of reinforced concrete and struc-
tural steel joint design. The traditional separation between structural steel
and reinforced concrete design and the resulting lack of design guidelines
have inhibited the use of composite beam-column joints in the United States.
In Japan, a type of composite construction called steel reinforced concrete
(SRC) construction has been popular for many years and has generated con-
siderable research on composite joints (Wakabayashi 1985). However, much
of the Japanese literature is not applicable to the composite joint configu-
ration addressed herein. In Japan, composite frames usually are built with
composite columns where the embedded steel column is much larger than
the erection columns popular in U.S. practice.
The results of an experimental program on the behavior of moment con-
nections between steel beams and reinforced concrete or composite columns
(Deierlein et al. 1988; Sheikh et al. 1987) are summarized herein. 15 two-
thirds scale joint specimens were tested under monotonic and cyclic loading
2859

J. Struct. Eng., 1989, 115(11): 2858-2876

 to assess strength and stiffness of joints with different details. In a compan-
ion paper (Deierlein et al. 1989), a quantitative analysis of these results is
presented using a design model for joint strength.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 10/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

JOINT BEHAVIOR

The classic deflected shape of a structural frame subjected to lateral load-

ing where the load distribution is characterized by inflection points near the
midpoint of the beams and columns is shown in Fig. 2(a). The maximum
moments occur at the connection, and in Fig. 2(b) they are shown acting
on an interior joint. Satisfactory response for the frame requires the con-
nection to transfer the large unbalanced beam and column moments with
reasonable deformations at both service and ultimate conditions.
Joint behavior is characterized by two primary modes of failure, shown
in Figs. 3(a and b). Panel shear failure is similar to that typically associated
with structural steel or reinforced concrete joints, but in composite joints
both structural steel and reinforced concrete elements participate. Bearing

(a) (h)
FIG. 2. (a) Frame Subjected to Lateral Loading; (b) Interior Joint

(a) (b)

FIG. 3. (a) Panel Shear Failure; (b) Vertical Bearing Failure

2860

J. Struct. Eng., 1989, 115(11): 2858-2876

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 10/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

rt-Stiffener
Plate

Steel
Column

FIG. 4. (a) Steel Web Panel; (ft) Concrete Compression Strut; (c) Concrete
Compression Field

failure occurs at locations of high compressive stresses and permits rigid

body rotation of the steel beam within the concrete column. As will be de-
scribed, vertical joint reinforcement, as shown in Fig. 3(b), is one means of
strengthening for bearing failure.
Three mechanisms for joint shear resistance are shown in Figs. 4(a-c).
Beam moments are shown as equivalent horizontal force couples acting in
the beam flanges, and column moments are shown as vertical force couples.
Mechanics of the joint shear mechanisms may be visualized by considering
their role in resisting the horizontal flange forces and thus preventing hori-
zontal movement of the beam flanges through the joint.
The steel web panel, shown in Fig. 4(a), acts similarly in composite and
structural steel connections. The web is idealized as carrying pure shear stress
over an effective panel length jh, which is dependent on the location and
2861

J. Struct. Eng., 1989, 115(11): 2858-2876

 Flange
Force
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 10/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

•Tie Force

FIG. 5. Horizontal Force Transfer

distribution of vertical bearing stresses.

The concrete compression strut, shown in Fig. 4(b), is similar to the mech-
anism used to model shear in reinforced concrete connections (ACI-ASCE
1985). In composite connections, the concrete strut is mobilized by vertical
stiffener plates attached to the beam that bear against the concrete. As will
be described, the location and width of the stiffener plates determine how
effectively the concrete strut is mobilized in resisting joint shear.
The concrete compression field, shown in Fig. 4(c), consists of several
compression struts that act with horizontal reinforcement to form a truss
mechanism (often used for modeling shear in reinforced concrete beams).
The compression field is developed in the region outside the steel beam.
Shear is transferred horizontally from the beam flange into the compression
field through bearing against the embedded steel columns (Fig. 5), stiffeners
extended above and below the steel beam, or shear studs welded to the beam
flanges.

JOINT DETAILS
The steel details used to mobilize joint shear in the test specimens are
shown in Figs. 6(a and b). The stiffener plate details shown in Fig. 6(a)
mobilize a concrete compression strut between the beam flanges. Stiffener
plates located at the face of the concrete column are referred to as face
bearing plates (FBPs), and those inset to line up with the steel column flanges
are referred to as inset bearing plates (IBPs). As shown in section, the stif-
fener plates can vary in width and may be either full height or split for
fabrication ease.
The details shown in Fig. 6(b) mobilize the concrete compression field
outside the flanges through struts such as those shown in Fig. 5. The steel
column is almost always available since it is usually required for erection.
Extended face bearing plates and welded shear studs may be convenient where
an alternative construction sequence or joint configuration eliminates the need
for the erection column.
EXPERIMENTAL TEST PROGRAM
Scope
15 two-thirds scale specimens were built and tested—seven specimens tested
under monotonic loading and eight under reversed cyclic loads. More ex-
2862

J. Struct. Eng., 1989, 115(11): 2858-2876

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 10/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

<

plate krM
— ^ — width-J-^

Face Bearing Plates Inset Bearing Plates Section

(FBP) (IBP)
(a)
support
-%/s ] plate- vTi

Extended Face Shear Studs

Bearing Plates

FIG. 6. (a) Bearing (Stiffener) Plate Details; (6) Extended FBP, Steel Column, and
Shear Stud Details

tensive test details are presented elsewhere (Deierlein et al. 1988; Sheikh et
al. 1987).

Specimen Description
Specimen geometry is shown in Fig. 7. The cruciform-shaped planar con-
nections were loaded to replicate the joint forces from lateral loading shown
in Fig. 2(b). For convenience, reusable extension beams were bolted to the
specimens to provide the desired lever arm. Static loads were applied equally
in the directions shown. Aside from monitoring the applied beam load and
joint deformations, steel and concrete strains were also measured.
The connection configuration and reinforcing steel details common to all
15 specimens are shown in Fig. 8. The steel beam, which is continuous
through the joint, was a hybrid built-up section. The beam was weak in shear
relative to its bending strength to ensure that the beam flexural capacity out-
side the joint exceeded the anticipated joint strength. The hybrid beam has
roughly 40% the shear strength of a rolled shape [W18 X 76 (A36)] with a
2863

J. Struct. Eng., 1989, 115(11): 2858-2876

 16'-0" (4880 mm)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 10/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

, Reaction

20" x 20" (510X510 mm)

f
Concrete Column Built-up W18

~~§ J

f Applied Load
2'-5" 2'-5"
=l I Applied Load

(740 mm) (740 mm) • Extension Beam

•Bolted Moment Splice

Reaction

FIG. 7. Typical Test Specimen

7/8" (22mm) holes

in web

4-#3(10mm),
@ 4" (100mm) o.c.

3 - # 3 (10mm),
@ 2" (50mm) o.c.

r
#~§~" • •

]
@m Q,m
- 1 2 - #10 (32 mm) bars, Gr.60

section A section B

FIG. 8. Reinforcing Steel Details

2864

J. Struct. Eng., 1989, 115(11): 2858-2876

 similar moment capacity. The hybrid beam was used in the tests to force
failure in the joint, but in design, the members would be proportional so
that failure occurs in the beams before the joint or column strength is reached.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 10/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

One result of this is that in the test specimens, the relative contribution of
the concrete to the joint shear capacity is larger than that which may occur
in practice. Plate dimensions and measured yield strengths used in the beams
are as follows: web plate 0.25 x 16 in., Fy 36 ksi (6 X 406 mm, Fy 284
MPa); flange plates (specimens 3-9) 0.75 X 8 in., Fv 51 ksi (19 X 203
mm, Fy 351 MPa); flange plates (specimens 10-17) 0.875 X 8 in., Fy 49
ksi (22 X 203 mm, Fy 338 MPa). The specific joint details used for each
specimen are given with the test results.
Similarly to the steel beam section, the vertical column reinforcement shown
in Fig. 8 was designed to exceed the connection strength. Vertical bars are
located in the column corners to allow clear passage of the steel beams through
the column. Horizontal ties were provided within the beam depth to confine
concrete in the joint and to carry tension forces associated with the compres-
sion field mechanism. As shown in Fig. 8, cap ties passed through holes
drilled in the steel web. Above and below the beam, three layers of closed
rectangular hoops confined the concrete in the region where high bearing
stresses developed. The closed hoops also resist lateral tension forces created
by the transfer struts shown in Fig. 5. Concrete strengths ranged between
3.6-5.0 ksi (24.8-34.5 MPa) based on standard 6 X 12 in. (152 X 305-
mm) cylinder tests. Specimens were cast in an upright position to replicate
in situ concrete operations.

TEST SPECIMEN RESPONSE

Load-Deformation
The load-deformation response of two specimens is shown in Figs. 9(a
and b). The vertical axis indicates the applied beam load, which is propor-
tional to beam moments adjacent to the connection. The total joint distortion
(TJD) on the horizontal axis is a measure of the total relative angular rotation
between the steel beam and concrete column. In specimens 10-17, this dis-
tortion was calculated directly as the average difference in rotation between
the beam and column measured at the locations shown in Fig. 10. The joint
distortion in specimens 3-9 was determined by subtracting the calculated
member deformations from the overall specimen deformation. The joint dis-
tortion is reported as a percentage, where 1% corresponds to an angle change
of 0.01 radians.
Specimens 3-9 were loaded monotonically to distortions of roughly 4—
6%, first in one direction and then in the reverse direction. The load-de-
formation response for specimen 5, which is representative of the monotonic
tests, is shown in Fig. 9(a). The response indicates that the joint is fairly
ductile. Shown in the figure are points where cracks were observed on the
column face and also where the steel web yielded. Web yielding was mon-
itored both by strain gages attached to the web and by changes in other strain
gage and deformation measurements. The capacity continued to increase af-
ter web yielding, thus demonstrating the contribution of concrete elements
in resisting joint shear. Also shown in the figure is the load carried at 1%
distortion, which is chosen as the basis for comparing the test results and
2865

J. Struct. Eng., 1989, 115(11): 2858-2876

 40 -i

^%" ' /28.2 k /

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 10/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

20-
y +/ /
c-

20-

y: web yielding
c: surface cracking
40-

Joint Distortion (%)

(a)

-2 0 2
Joint Distortion (%)
(b)

FIG. 9. Load-Deformation Response: (a) Specimen 5; (b) Specimen 12

represents a reasonable measure of the nominal connection strength for use

in design.
Specimens 10-17 were cyclically loaded according to the following re-
gime: two cycles to 1% distortion, two cycles to 2% distortion, and finally
one half-cycle to 4% distortion. The load-deformation response for specimen
12, which is representative of the cyclic tests, is shown in Fig. 9(b). The
failure envelope obtained from the cyclic response is similar to the mono-
tonic response curve, and therefore, remarks made regarding Fig. 9(a) apply
to Fig. 9(b) as well. The cyclic tests demonstrated that the composite joints
have reasonable toughness, which is comparable to that in reinforced con-
crete joints designed for seismic regions. After two full cycles to both 1%
and 2% distortion, the connections continued to carry at least 75% of the

2866

J. Struct. Eng., 1989, 115(11): 2858-2876

 Bolted
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 10/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Connection
9.5" (241 mm)
0.5" (13 mm)

2" (51 mm)

Embedded
Anchor Measurement Fixture

FIG. 10. Locations for Rotation Measurements

original load carried at each level of deformation. Further, the area enclosed
by the hysteresis loops indicates that the inelastic joint response could dis-
sipate a reasonable amount of energy and could dampen response for extreme
dynamic loadings.
The monotonic load-deformation response was idealized as shown in Fig.
11. In this figure, the nominal joint strength (at 1% distortion) is roughly
15% less than the ultimate load reached at higher deformations. The 1%
limit was selected to recognize that connections are typically designed with-
out explicitly considering nonlinear joint deformations. Based on a service
load equal to one-half the nominal strength defined at 1% distortion, the
service load distortion (based on test results) is roughly 0.2%. This distortion
is comparable to that typically observed in tests of reinforced concrete as
well as steel moment connections (Deierlein et al. 1988).

1.0 2.0
TJD (%)
FIG. 11. Idealized Monotonic Joint Response

2867

J. Struct. Eng., 1989, 115(11): 2858-2876

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 10/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 12. Surface Cracking: (a) at 1% Distortion; (b) after Second 2% Distortion
Cycle

Concrete Cracking
Typical cracking patterns at 1% and 2% joint distortion are shown in Figs.
12(a and b). In Fig. 12(a), the specimen has been loaded in one direction
to 1% distortion with loads applied such that the top beam flange is in ten-
sion on the left and in compression on the right. Cracking on the column
face indicates the formation of diagonal compression struts in the outer con-
crete panel. As noted previously, at 1% distortion the steel web panel already
has yielded, and additional capacity is provided by the concrete shear mech-
anisms. At 1% distortion, the crack widths typically measured less than 1/
16 in. (1.5 mm). In Fig. 12(b), the same specimen has been loaded through
two complete cycles to both 1% and 2% distortion. As expected, the reverse
loading resulted in a nearly symmetric crack pattern. At 2% distortion, the
largest cracks measured roughly 1/8 in. (3 mm).
Dissection
After testing, several specimens were dissected to examine the general
condition of concrete within the joint. As shown in the section view of Fig.
13, a pulverized layer of concrete rubble was formed by abrasion as the steel
beam tended to rotate as a rigid body inside the concrete column. This layer
effectively separated the connection region into an inner and an outer panel.
The inner panel region consisted of the steel web and concrete encased by
the beam flanges and vertical stiffener plates. The outer panel region con-
sisted of concrete outside the beam flange width.
Concrete in the inner panel was extensively cracked parallel to the joint
diagonals as shown in Fig. 13. Presumably, such cracking occurred during
cyclic shear (racking) deformation of the inner panel. In specimens where
2868

J. Struct. Eng., 1989, 115(11): 2858-2876

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 10/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FRONT VIEW SECTION

FIG. 13. Concrete Damage in Joint Region

stiffener plates (FBPs or IBPs) were not used, the inner panel concrete was
relatively uncracked. Stiffener plates were needed to mobilize concrete
compression struts in this region.
Concrete in the outer panel was damaged to varying degrees depending
upon the joint detail used. In general, more damage was observed in spec-
imens with greater concrete participation as evidenced by higher joint strengths.
In the outer panel, concrete was typically broken into 2-4-in. (50-100-mm)
pieces, which were held in place by the horizontal column ties, thus dem-
onstrating the role of the ties in confining the concrete core.
Entrapped air voids measuring roughly 1-2 in. (25-50 mm) in diameter
and 1/8-in. (3-mm) thick were noted in the concrete cast against the bottom
of the beam flanges. These voids and the likelihood of weakened concrete
(due to trapped bleed water under the flanges) demonstrate the importance
of simulating field conditions in construction of the test specimens.

NOMINAL JOINT STRENGTHS

Description of the joint details and a summary of the nominal joint strengths
are presented in Table 1. In Table 1, the joint details are described using
the nomenclature shown in Figs. 6(a and b). Differences in nominal strengths
were due primarily to different joint detailing, but may also reflect variations
in concrete strength. Because the strength is not solely a function of concrete
strength, no normalization of measured values was attempted. The joint
strengths reported in Table 1 are equal to the average beam shears measured
at 1% joint distortion. Also indicated in Table 1 is the ratio of joint strength
to that of specimen 3, which represents the least efficient detail. The mode
of failure for each test is noted.

Face Bearing Plates

Specimens 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10 demonstrate effectiveness of the face
bearing plates in mobilizing the concrete compression strut. Specimen 3 con-
sisted of a plain steel beam, and thus had no means other than friction and
adhesion to transfer horizontal force from the beam flanges into the concrete.
A detailed analysis of specimen 3 (Deierlein et al. 1988) indicates that roughly
2869

J. Struct. Eng., 1989, 115(11): 2858-2876

 TABLE 1. Summary of Test Results
Specimen /; Strength Comparison Mode of
number Joint detail (ksi) (kips) ratio failure
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 10/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

3 Plain beam 4.5 16.5 1.00 Panel shear
4 FBP (0.375 X 8 X 16 in., A 36) 4.3 . 26.6 1.61 Panel shear
5 Thick FBP (0.875 X 8 X 16 in., 4.3 28.2 1.71 Panel shear
Gr. 50)
6 FBP (0.375 X 8 X 16 in., A36) 4.0 35.8 2.17 Vertical
with styrofoam backing; Two web bearing
doubler plates (0.5 in. thick, Gr.
50)
7 Wide FBP (0.875 X 12 X 16 in., 4.0 33.8 2.05 Panel shear
Gr. 50)
8 Extended FBP [0.875 X 8 X 25.5 3.6 46.2 2.80 Panel shear
in. (4 in. extension), Gr. 50]
9 FBP (0.875 X 8 X 16 in., Gr. 50); 3.7 26.2 1.59 Panel shear
Cut-out steel-web inside joint
10 Split FBP (2.375 x 8 x 7.5 in., 4.7 29.0 1.76 Panel shear
A36)
11 FBP (0.375 X 8 X 16 in., A36); 4.7 47.0 2.85 Panel shear
Two web doubler plates (0.125-
in. thick, A36); Dywidag bars (8-
#8-3 ft., Gr. 60)
12 Shear studs (15-0.5 in. 4> x 4 in., 5.0 28.7 1.74 Panel shear
each flange)
13 Shear studs (15-0.5 in. <>
| x 4 in., 5.0 42.8 2.59 Panel shear
each flange); FBP (0.375 X 8 X
16 in., A36)
14 Steel column (W5 X 18.5, Gr. 50); 4.0 33.8 2.05 Panel shear
IBP (0.375 X 8 X 16 in., A36)
15 Steel column (W5 X 18.5, Gr. 50); 4.0 37.0 2.24 Panel shear
FBP (0.375 X 8 X 16 in., A36)
16 Steel column (W5 X 18.5, Gr. 50); 3.8 37.3 2.26 Panel shear
FBP (0.375 X 8 X 16 in., A36); and angle
clip angles (L4 X 4 X 0.375 in., yielding
A36)
17 Steel column (W5 X 18.5, Gr. 50); 3.9 36.8 2.23 Panel shear
FBP (0.375 X 8 X 16 in., A36);
Dywidag bars (8-#8-3 ft., Gr. 60)
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ksi = 6.89 MPa; 1 kip = 4.45 kN.

80% of its shear strength was contributed by the steel web and 20% by the
concrete. In specimens 4, 5, and 10, face bearing plates as wide as the beam
flange mobilized the concrete compression strut in the inner joint region.
Nominal strengths of 61-76% above that of specimen 3 were measured.
Comparison between specimens 4, 5, and 10 also shows that the FBP thick-
ness and configuration did not have significant effects on their performance.
Stiff bearing plates in specimen 5 [7/8 in. (22 mm), Grade 50] are likely
to represent an upper bound, while specimen 10, with flexible plates [split
3/8 in. (10 mm), A36] represents a lower bound. In specimen 7, the FBPs
are 1.5 times [2 in. (5.0 mm)] wider than those in specimens 4, 5, and 10.
Compared with specimen 5, the increase in the nominal strength (1.05/0.71
= 1.48) of specimen 7 was roughly proportional to the increased plate width.
2870

J. Struct. Eng., 1989, 115(11): 2858-2876

 Thus, it appears that the concrete compression strut width, and therefore its
strength, is proportional to the FBP width.
Specimen 9 had thick FBPs like specimen 5, but in specimen 9 a large
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 10/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

portion of the steel web panel was removed from the joint region to isolate
the concrete contribution to the shear strength. The results of specimen 9
were surprising since removal of the steel web did not decrease the strength
significantly from that of specimen 5. Several possible explanations for the
unexpected behavior of specimen 9 are presented elsewhere (Sheikh et al.
1987).

Concrete Compression Field

A second group of tests, consisting of specimens 8 and 12-17 demonstrate
participation of the concrete compression field outside the beam flanges.
Recall that the compression field is mobilized through the horizontal transfer
struts such as those shown in Fig. 5. Specimen 8, which had FBPs attached
both within the beam depth and extending four inches above and below the
beam, carried a load 180% greater than specimen 3. Comparison of speci-
men 5 with specimen 8 indicates that about 71% of the increase could be
attributed to the FBPs between the flanges, and the remainder, 109%, could
be attributed to the extended portion of the FBPs. The portions of the FBPs
extended above and below the flanges were stiffened [Fig. 6(b)] for trans-
verse plate bending. It should be noted that in practice such support plates
can be located within the joint, thereby providing a clean appearance. In
specimen 12 (without FBPs), shear studs welded to the beam flanges pro-
vided a means of transferring force from the flange to the concrete. In spec-
imen 13, FBPs within the beam depth and shear studs were attached. Com-
paring specimen 12 and 8, the strength increased about 74% with shear studs,
an increase roughly 68% (74%/109%) of that provided by the extended FBPs.
Presumably, the uniform distribution of shear stud transfer is less effective
than extended FBPs in transferring force to the concrete compression field.
Comparison of specimens 12, 13, and 5 indicates that the forces transferred
by the shear studs add to those transferred by the FBPs. The sum of the
71% and 74% increase in capacity using FBPs (71%) and shear studs (74%)
in specimens 5 and 12 is similar to the increase in specimen 13 (159%),
which had both. Each detail appears to mobilize concrete in different regions
of the connection and permits addition of strength attributed to each detail.
Specimens 14-17 all had steel columns attached to the beam, as well as
either FBPs or IBPs within the beam depth. Comparing specimen 15 (FBPs
and steel column) with specimen 5 (FBPs) suggests that the steel column
provided an increase of 53% (224% — 171%) over a plain beam (specimen
3). The increase with the steel column was roughly 49% (53%/109%) of
that obtained by the extended FBPs in specimen 8 and is similar to that of
the shear stud detail. In specimen 14, the inset bearing plates (IBPs) were
aligned with the steel column flanges. Comparison of specimens 5, 14, and
15 indicates that insetting the stiffeners reduced their effectiveness by 27%
[(224% - 205%)/71%].
In specimen 16, light steel angles (clip angles) were attached to the beam
to serve as extended FBPs similar to those in specimen 8 and to provide
additional confinement of the highly stressed concrete bearing region. The
clip angles did not have vertical stiffeners as did the FBPs in specimen 8.
The angles yielded at low loads and did not improve the performance relative
2871

J. Struct. Eng., 1989, 115(11): 2858-2876

 to specimen 15. In specimen 17, #8 (25-mm diameter) vertical Dywidag
bars were attached to the beam flanges, 2.5 in. (64 mm) from the column
face [see Fig. 3(b)], with the aim of reducing deformations associated with
vertical bearing failure. As evident from the results, addition of these bars
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 10/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

did not significantly improve the strength since the connection strength was
governed by panel shear and not vertical bearing. The strength was almost
the same as that of specimens 15 and 16.

Bearing
Specimen 6 had thick web doubler plates in the joint region, which pre-
cluded panel shear failure and produced a bearing failure. This test provided
information regarding the connection strength as governed by concrete bear-
ing against the beam flanges [see Fig. 3(b)]. Specimen 6 also had FBPs to
support the beam flanges under transverse bending. These plates were fitted
with 3/8-in. (10-mm) thick Styrofoam backing to eliminate transfer of force
between the FBPs and concrete. As indicated in Table 1, in specimen 6 the
bearing failure occurred at a load equal to 217% of specimen 3. As expected,
the strength of specimen 6 exceeded that of specimens with FBPs where
panel shear governed the strength (specimens 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10). In details
where the concrete compression field was mobilized in the outer panel (spec-
imens 8, 13, 15, 16, and 17), the strength was controlled by panel shear
but at a load exceeding that of the bearing failure in specimen 6. This in-
dicates that if concrete outside the beam flanges can be mobilized, the ef-
fective bearing width and bearing strength increase.
Specimen 11 was designed to evaluate effectiveness of vertical joint re-
inforcement attached to the beam for increasing joint strength where bearing
failure would otherwise control. In specimen 11, web doubler plates and
FBPs were used to increase the panel shear capacity, although in this case
the web doubler plates were not as thick as those in specimen 6 and were
expected to yield. Vertical joint reinforcement consisted of eight #8 (25-
mm diameter) Dywidag reinforcing bars (two bars in each of four locations)
attached through couplers welded to the beam flanges and located 2.5 in.
(64 mm) from the concrete column face [see Fig. 3(b)]. As well as providing
compression reinforcement in the concrete bearing region, the vertical joint
reinforcement provided means for transferring vertical tension forces into the
column. As seen in Table 1, the vertical joint reinforcement did provide an
effective means of increasing the joint strength above that governed by bear-
ing. The strength of specimen 11 was eventually limited by panel shear.

STRAIN G A G E DATA

Concrete Embedment Gages

Concrete embedment strain gages were located in the diagonal strut region
as shown in Fig. 14. Typically, one gage was located within the beam flange
width and one gage outside the beam width. In Fig. 14, concrete strains
recorded during initial loading on specimen 10 are plotted versus joint de-
formation. Since specimen 10 had FBPs to mobilize the concrete strut be-
tween the flanges, the inner concrete gage picked up compressive strain at
almost twice the rate of the outer gage. In other specimens where the
compression field was mobilized in the outer region, the strain rates in the
inner and outer gages were nearly equal. The strains showed a noticeable
28/2

J. Struct. Eng., 1989, 115(11): 2858-2876

 0.003
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 10/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Joint Distortion ( % )

FIG. 14. Concrete Compression Strut Strain

increase at about 0.7% joint distortion, which coincided with yielding of the
steel web. Once the steel web yielded, more load was then carried by the
concrete panel.
Beam Flange Stress
Pairs of strain gages were located along the bottom beam flange, as shown
in Fig. 15, to measure the change in axial flange stress through the joint.
In Fig. 15, flange stresses at equal applied loads are shown for specimens
10 (FBP) and 12 (shear studs). In specimen 10, bottom flange stresses were
transferred to the steel web and through the FBP to the concrete. As shown,
a large force was transferred near the compression face of the column where
the diagonal concrete strut was bearing against the face bearing plate. In
specimen 12, the shear studs resulted in a more uniform transfer of stresses
to the concrete.

• > / ~

Specimen 10 Specimen 12

FIG. 15. Axial Stress on Bottom Beam Flange

2873

J. Struct. Eng., 1989, 115(11): 2858-2876

 30 ksit
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 10/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 16. Vertical Bar Axial Stress

Longitudinal Bar Stress

Strain gage readings for vertical column bars adjacent to the connection
are shown in Fig. 16. Also shown is the theoretical bar stress calculated
using classical bending theory. When the connection was loaded as shown
in the figure, the upper gage recorded tension and the lower recorded
compression. Initially, the measured tensile stress was slightly less than the
theoretical stress, probably because of tension in the concrete and an unequal
distribution of force between all the bars, neither of which is accounted for
by classical beam theory. Initially, the measured compressive stress followed
the theoretical stress closely; however, at relatively low loads, the stress
reversed to tension. Similar behavior has been reported for column and beam
bars in reinforced concrete joints (ACI-ASCE: "Recommendations" 1985)
due to a loss of bond transfer along vertical bars through the joint region.
The difference in the measured and theoretical bar stress indicates that trans-
fer of force to the vertical bars in the composite joints was roughly one-half
that predicted by theory. In the tests, loss in transfer appeared to result from
concrete cracking, which tended to isolate the corner column bars from the
joint core. As in reinforced concrete joints, this deterioration cannot be pre-
vented entirely, but it can be reduced by careful bar layouts, use of trans-
verse steel, and limits on the maximum permitted bar sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

Test results showed that composite beam-column connections are reliable

details that provide adequate stiffness at service loads and ductile failure at
ultimate loads. Additionally, under reversed cyclic loading, composite con-
nections exhibited toughness comparable to reinforced concrete joints de-
tailed for seismic design.
Basic mechanics provides understanding of the internal shear mechanisms
and modes of failure that govern the joint strength. Tests showed that joint
strength is significantly increased through details that mobilize concrete shear
mechanisms in the joint. The reinforced concrete column transfers joint shear
through two basic mechanism: a compression strut within the beam flanges,
2874

J. Struct. Eng., 1989, 115(11): 2858-2876

 and a compression field outside the flanges.
The face bearing plate details increased the strength of the plain steel beam
6 0 - 1 0 5 % by developing the compression strut mechanism. Tests suggest
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 10/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

that the strength increase is proportional to the bearing plate width. Effec-
tiveness of the face bearing plate details was not highly sensitive to their
stiffness, and therefore, such elements can be designed based on strength
considerations alone. Insetting the bearing plates to line up with the steel
column flanges reduced their effectiveness by roughly 30%.
Details such as the steel column, welded shear studs, or extended face
bearing plates increased the capacity roughly 50-110% by mobilizing the
compression field mechanism. In general, the strength increase afforded by
details mobilizing the inner compression strut is additive with that provided
by details mobilizing the outer compression field. Finally, where connection
strength was controlled by vertical bearing, vertical joint reinforcement at-
tached to the beam provided an effective means of increasing capacity.
In summary, relatively simple joint details provided up to a 180% increase
in joint strength over a plain steel beam, thus demonstrating the potential
for composite joints as an attractive design alternative to structural steel or
reinforced concrete.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The material presented herein is based on research supported primarily by

the National Science Foundation under Grant No. MSM-8412111. Addi-
tional funding was provided by the University of Texas, the American In-
stitute of Steel Construction, and CBM Engineers of Houston, Texas. The
experimental tests were conducted at the Ferguson Structural Engineering
Laboratory of the University of Texas at Austin. Any opinions, findings,
and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the
writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foun-
dation or the other sponsors.

APPENDIX. REFERENCES

Deierlein, G. G., et al. (1989). "Beam-column moment connections for composite

frames: Part 2." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 115(11), 2877-2896.
Deierlein, G. G., Yura, J. A., and Jirsa, J. O. (1988). "Design of moment con-
nections for composite framed structures." PMFSEL Report No. 88-1, The Uni-
versity of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Griffis, L. (1986). "Some design considerations for composite-frame structures." AJSC
Engrg. J.
Iyengar, H. (1985). "Recent developments in mixed steel-concrete systems." Com-
posite and mixed construction. C. Roeder, ed., ASCE, New York, N.Y., 173—
184.
Lu, L.. and Kato, B. (1985). "Seminar summary and research needs." Composite
and mixed construction, C. Roeder, ed., ASCE, New York, N.Y., 323-329.
Moore, W., and Gosain, N. (1985). "Mixed systems: Past practices, recent expe-
rience and future direction." Composite and mixed construction, C. Roeder, ed.,
ASCE, New York, N.Y., 138-149.
"Recommendations for design of beam column joints in monolithic reinforced con-
crete structures." (1985). J. Am. Concr. Inst., ACI-ASCE Committee 352, 82(3),
266-283.

2875

J. Struct. Eng., 1989, 115(11): 2858-2876

 Sheikh, T. M., Yura, J. A., and Jirsa, J. O. (1987). "Moment connections between
steel beams and concrete columns." PMFSEL Report No. 87-4, The University of
Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NIRMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 10/06/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Wakabayashi, M. (1985). "Recent developments for composite buildings in Japan."

Composite and mixed construction, C. Roeder, ed., ASCE, New York, N.Y.,
241-253.

2876

J. Struct. Eng., 1989, 115(11): 2858-2876